I imagine myself in a classroom where the teacher allows us to interpret what we wish about literature. It is good to some extent to hear the knowledge the teacher can provide, but sometimes this can tear down the beauty of the art form. When we scrutinize too hard, we begin to loose pleasure.

There are some alterior motivations for wanting to fair. Sometimes there is just so much pressure to succeed, but there are people who do no want to succeed at all. There are even cases where children do not want to do better than their parents. The children do not want to be like their parents.

The Timeline of Literary Theory...

Literary Theory is the varying ways to read and make meaning of a text. New Criticism is the, well relatively new way of criticism, as in it was the way of interpreting texts from the 1920's to the 1950's. New Criticism was a way of seeking out contradictions in a text and figuring out how those contradictions unified the text and created meaning. Then, in the 1960's we had a cultural revolution in America, England, and in France. A lot of the criticism was carried from Europe to America. From this international wave, we got new ways of looking at texts such as the way of Freud. Freud dealt heavily with psycholanalysis and the unconscious. This way would direct our thoughts and actions. There was an intense move to attempt to understand dreams and the inner-workings of the mind. When we go to a psychoanalysis, they are essentially "reading" us. Why not apply this to BOOKS?

From this, we created the psychoanalytic theory, which gave way to feminism writing. The movement for women's rights and equality began in the 50's and carried on heavily through the 60's and 70's. Where you read texts to discover hidden or not hidden meanings about female desire, empowerment, equality, sexuality, gender politics, and most importantly POWER and SUBJECTIVITY. What makes a woman a woman and a man a man. These all create theorhetical ways to read! This marked the beginning of the academy as a political space. Nothing is at state socially or culturally here.

So, what can literature show us about equality? Subjectivity? Power? Many people take great offense in studying these factors. Then a prominent question arises: "WHO CARES WHAT THE AUTHOR THOUGHT?!" We now begin reading texts looking for certain bits; we are less concerned with what the author was thinking. This also holds true for the critical race theory. The same information can all be applied to race. Texts begin to have a larger cultural meaning.

Now, with all these new theories, we begin to question what a TEXT is. Texts now are poems, novels, plays, films, tv shows, movies, digital images, art, painting, cd's, music, graffiti, clothes, merchandising, advertising. Now, texts are ANYTHING THAT ONE CAN INTERPRET IN SOME WAY.

Then, of course, there's Queer Theory. This deals with gender issues, power, gender depictions, heteronormative ways of thinking. How is queer identity constructed in a text? It deals with power, identity, subjectivity, political significance, cultural significance, and types of representation. Literary theory thus is frequently attacked because it can politically divide a classroom.

The Deconstruction deals with French philosophy of Jacques Derrida from the 1970's onward.

Logocentric is when we privilege the faculty of reason over all else. In the history of the West, reason has been used to judge what makes a human, human.

In literature or philosophy or political reports, or expeditions to far away lands, non-white peoples are judged to be without reason and therefore are not fully human. During British Imperialism, slave trade between England and its plantations all over the world. The deconstruction, then, is to question meaning, to question stable notions of identity, to question stable notions of what a person is and so on. So, how do we make meaning? Is a text just a text?
What is art? What is a poem? We are challenging fundamental assumptions of Western culture.

There is a lot of academic "talk" in On Beauty. It is quite politicized, and it is discussing that in the academic realhm. It is discussing the culture wars.

Who is anti-left and anti-right? The left and the right are the others opinions of what "Great Art" is. There is the "canon," and that is a comfort zone to many of us. We think about the "lefty intellectuals," who have a tendancy to dismantle any other opposing view. Howard is an example of this in "On Beauty." These people, in essence, are simply mimicking the words of our past. There is nothing creative on their part.

I was fascinated by the "Creative Writing" scandal in the book. It really does make a comment on the university as a whole. It is interesting how one person could manipulate one individual on behalf of her father's affair. There is such pressure to get grades and authority, and there is so much jugdement on each and every student. It really does interfere with beauty because our minds are so cluttered by the establishment. Universities, in my opinion, do not defend beauty.

I really like the analogy we are using right now. Do we want the 'A' doctor or the 'C' doctor. Sometimes the A doctor can be a sleazy creature, but the C doctor can be a better person. In many cases, the grades do not mandate a better teacher. The same is true in undergrad, I believe. I may not make straight A's, but I feel that I sometimes learn more and benefit more than those kids who are "naturally gifted" (as my mother dubbed them when I was in elementary school.) I know many people who don't get the best grades, but they are good, honest people.

Between the Lines: Beauty

Well, unfortunately, my computer has been having some technical difficulties, so I'm starting a bit late on this class discusion.

Last class, we were discussing the overall topic of beauty. What is it technically? If we spend our time paroozing through celebrity magazines, we are bombarded by women who appear to be 5'10 and 110 pounds. If we are too caught up in this cookie-cutter images, we loose our ability to define true beauty, which is a beauty more based on lines and what makes up a person.

In our book, the characters are scrutinized with their body images and whether or not they are beautiful. It is interesting to compare these images in relation to thier social class.

Howard, while upper class, is extremely condescending toward Kiki during Mozart's Requiem.

Imagine if all of us had never heard of Mozart before. What if he was just a man playing for pocket change on the street? Would we all idolize him so much? We put people like this on a level of bardolotry. Here's the problem: the bard is always a man. There is this "Great Man Theory" that is plaguing us. There has yet to be a "great woman." Thus far in our history, there is no woman.

Pg. 118-120: It is hard to say why Howard had an affair with Claire. Claire is more on Howard's level intellectually. Claire is caucasion, thin, fit, and tan. She is the complete opposite. I can imagine that Kiki would be upset because of many things, but physically, it must be extremely disheartening to look at her husband having an affair with a woman of Claire's type. Claire is the social description of "beautiful." She is probably more aethetically pleasing than Kiki is. It must also hurt Kiki because of the intellectual gap between she and her husband and then seeing how Howard gravitates toward Claire. Claire is more well-rounded education-wise. Overall, Claire is the exact antithesis of what Kiki is.

On Beauty...

On Beauty was written by Zadie Smith. The main theme is multiculturalism.

Zadie Smith
"You can't just hit people over the head by telling them your political truths."
She believes that novels are political, but it is important not to command her beliefs in such a Stalin-esque fashion; to Smith, this kind of art is immoral and bad. Good art, on the other hand, "is a case of morals." Smith feels that good art is based not solely based on perceptions of oneself and not thinking of one's own personal feelings and ideals, but rather it is important to be able to look at the overview and realizing that you are not the center of the universe. It is necessary to incorperate all sides of the story.

In relation to everything we've been talking about in our recent classes, it is important to play devil's advocate and look at Zadie Smith for, well, basically her background: she is black and she is of a lower-class background.

Zadie Smith vs. "Zadie Smith:"
"Zadie Smith" is a brand; she is a character, not a real person. "Zadie Smith" is the bardolotry of Zadie Smith. Because Zadie Smith is black and not wealthy, "Zadie Smith" is created. Because of "who she is," it somewhat gives her this elevated status.

Psychological analogy for behavior: when people get upset with others for being messy or whatever, chances are that they are actually really just upset with themselves for the same thing that they are seeing as a defect in the other individual.

The Left, the Multiculturalists, say that there is no "great art." Is On Beauty art? Who can judge?

Jerome's family is the family in America. The Kipp's are the British family from the Carribean. Kiki is black, and her husband is white; the children are of mixed heritage. Monty is very religious, and thier children are very religious. His wife stays at home. They are a "typical" family.

Jerome is an interesting character. He is rebelling against his father. Kiki is upset with her husband because he has had an affair. He goes to work for Monty, which is somewhat of an interesting move. "Jerome had fallen in love with a family." Jerome does NOT want his family anymore; he looks at the other family, and he thinks that is what he wants.

Jeanette Winterson

I went online to see Winterson's website, and I thought that it was very interesting. In particular, I was captured by the thought of imagining any famous man, and then imagining his life as a woman. Sometimes, men get a leg-up simply because of their gender.

Also, now that we are exploring Sarah's blog, I am noticing the ways that Winterson words some things and descriptions. There are also many identity questions, in which the characters, especially Picasso question thier own identity and where and how they may fit into society.

...one final though carried on from below...

I was thinking about the movie 'Mona Lisa Smile,' which, among other things, discusses the meaning of art. What is it? What makes art 'art'? I really love this clip below. Start watching at about 1:55 and watch through the classroom scene. Hope you like it!